This time, though, it’s slightly different. Hours after Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, a suspected homegrown Islamist terrorist, shot and killed four U.S. Marines at a Naval Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Donald Trump, who is now leading the polls in the Republican Presidential primary, seized upon the tragedy, claiming that the problem isn’t the proliferation of deadly firearms, but a lack of them in certain locales, such as the so-called “gun-free zones” at military sites.

According to newsreports, Abdulazeez, a twenty-four-year-old Kuwaiti-born U.S. citizen, was armed with at least three guns, including an AK-47 assault rifle. How he got hold of these weapons wasn’t what concerned Trump, however. “Get rid of gun free zones,” he tweeted on Friday morning. “The four great marines who were just shot never had a chance. They were highly trained but helpless without guns.”

Trump was evidently referring to a Pentagon regulation, dating back to 1993, that prohibits some members of the military from carrying firearms while on base. His comments echoed those of gun enthusiasts, who highlighted, on social media, a picture of a sign prohibiting firearms that was on the door of the Chattanooga military-recruitment office where Abdulazeez reportedly opened fire before moving onto the Naval Reserve center, less than ten miles away.

For once, Trump has raised an important issue. In an era when attacks inspired by radical Islamism are becoming increasingly common, are gun laws magnifying the problem of domestic terrorism?

As usual, however, Trump has things backward. The issue isn’t gun-free zones; it is free-for-all gun zones, which decades of lax firearms laws have produced all over the country. In an America held hostage by the gun lobby, radicalized lone-wolf terrorists can get their hands on deadly weapons and mountains of ammunition just as easily as disturbed post-adolescents, delusional military subcontractors, virulent racists, and anybody else.

If the initial reports about Abdulazeez’s radicalization prove accurate, this will be the second attack in three months attempted by heavily armed homegrown Islamists. In Garland, Texas, in May, a sharp-shooting traffic cop killed two would-be attackers before they could reach their target, a crowd attending an event featuring cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Like Abdulazeez, Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi were both American Muslims, and they, too, were reportedly armed with AK-47s.

According to officials, at least some of the weapons in Abdulazeez's possession were obtained legally. We don’t know yet whether the authorities had any prior inkling of his conversion to radical Islam. In the Garland case, it turned out that Simpson had been the subject of an F.B.I. inquiry into his possible links to extremist groups. Indeed, back in 2011, according to the Times, he had been convicted of lying to federal agents about a planned visit to Somalia. But that didn’t prevent Simpson and Soofi from arming themselves for their attack. According to a law-enforcement source cited in a CNN report, they had six weapons in their car, all of which had been bought legally.

Evidently, the existing system of background checks for gun purchases failed to raise any alarms in these two instances. That was also the case with a .45-calibre handgun bought by Dylann Roof, who was arrested for the shootings in at a Charleston church last month, and it has been the case with all too many others who have carried out massacres.

Trump ignores all of this, of course, and he couldn’t even get the details straight about those “gun-free zones.” He ignored the fact that the military police who enforce the laws on military installations are routinely armed, as are other soldiers engaged in security roles, such as guard duty. Moreover, the four marines were killed not at the recruitment center, where the sign prohibiting firearms was located, but at the Naval Reserve center. It was there, too, that Abdulazeez was reportedly shot dead by police, who had pursued him from the recruitment office. Sadly, neither the military guards nor the police managed to stop Abdulazeez before he had killed four people. But to claim that these victims would be alive if they had been armed is pure speculation.

What isn’t speculation is that America has witnessed yet another gun massacre—which doesn’t, unfortunately, imply that policy changes are likely. In the past sixty years, the laxity of this country’s gun laws has survived just about everything: Presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations, drug wars, gang wars, cops getting shot, children accidentally shooting themselves or their parents, an epidemic of gun suicides, workplace massacres, mall massacres, theatre massacres, school massacres, and even church massacres. Now, we have another deadly phenomenon that highlights the dangers of ready access to firearms: the rise of domestically grown Islamist terrorists.

At least two reactions are possible.

One, favored by Trump and the N.R.A, would counter guns with more guns. They would further encourage the proliferation of hidden-carry laws, which enable people to carry concealed weapons, and place heavily armed guards anywhere a potential terrorist could strike—at government buildings, sports grounds, schools, theatres, transport hubs, malls, even churches. Over time, such a strategy would turn the United States into an even more militarized place than it already is. Whether it would prevent more terrorist attacks is a lot less clear.

The other option is the one that anti-gun activists, police chiefs, and sensible politicians have been promoting for decades: reform guns laws to keep deadly weapons, particularly rapid-fire guns, out of the hands of disturbed individuals and people of ill intent. Such a policy agenda wouldn’t stamp out domestically grown jihadism either. But it would surely make things more difficult for would-be attackers.

Which way will America go? It’s hard to know, but one conclusion can’t be avoided: in an era of domestic terrorism, gun laws are turning into a national-security issue.